In an article dated November 1, 2010, Seymour M. Hersh of The New Yorker, explains how the spring 2001 incident involving an American EP-3E Aries II reconnaissance aircraft and the Chinese military has spiraled into today's debate on cybersecurity.  At the time, the Pentagon reassured reporters that the crew had followed mandated protocols aimed at securing and disabling the plane's vital equipment and software (protocols that included using a fire axe to dismantle, and hot coffee to short circuit the internal components).  

Later, however, in a 2003 report, the Navy "acknowledged that things had not gone so well." According to the report, "'[c]ompromise by the People's Republic of China of undestroyed classified material . . . is highly probable and cannot be ruled out.'"  According to Rear Admiral Eric McVado (U.S.N., Ret.), the hard drives had been "zeroed out," but "'no one took a hammer'" to the vital components.  Sitting in on meetings following the incident, the intelligence costs were, according to Adm. McVado, "'grim.'"

According to The New Yorker,

***

The EP-3E debacle fuelled a longstanding debate within the military and in the Obama Administration. Many military leaders view the Chinese penetration as a warning about present and future vulnerabilities – about the possibility that China, or some other nation, could use its expanding cyber skills to attack America's civilian infrastructure and military complex.  On the other side are those who argue for a civilian response to the threat, focused on wider use of encryption.

***

The article continues by highlighting this debate – military vs. civilian response to cybersecurity. Even for this reason only, the article is highly recommended reading for our course.  Yet the article also provides the reader a detailed understanding of, and introduction to, the players on both sides of this debate. Further, the article delves into an issue of semantics; that is, there is a movement to disassociate "cyber war" from "cyber espionage."  The arguments made in favor of disassociation are interesting, and well worth your time.  

The full text of the article can be found at the link above, or here.  Again, this article is highly recommended reading for class. 

In an article dated November 1, 2010, Seymour M. Hersh of The New Yorker, explains how the spring 2001 incident involving an American EP-3E Aries II reconnaissance aircraft and the Chinese military has spiraled into today's debate on cybersecurity.  At the time, the Pentagon reassured reporters that the crew had followed mandated protocols aimed at securing and disabling the plane's vital equipment and software (protocols that included using a fire axe to dismantle, and hot coffee to short circuit the internal components).  

Later, however, in a 2003 report, the Navy "acknowledged that things had not gone so well." According to the report, "'[c]ompromise by the People's Republic of China of undestroyed classified material . . . is highly probable and cannot be ruled out.'"  According to Rear Admiral Eric McVado (U.S.N., Ret.), the hard drives had been "zeroed out," but "'no one took a hammer'" to the vital components.  Sitting in on meetings following the incident, the intelligence costs were, according to Adm. McVado, "'grim.'"

According to The New Yorker,

***

The EP-3E debacle fuelled a longstanding debate within the military and in the Obama Administration. Many military leaders view the Chinese penetration as a warning about present and future vulnerabilities – about the possibility that China, or some other nation, could use its expanding cyber skills to attack America's civilian infrastructure and military complex.  On the other side are those who argue for a civilian response to the threat, focused on wider use of encryption.

***

The article continues by highlighting this debate – military vs. civilian response to cybersecurity. Even for this reason only, the article is highly recommended reading for our course.  Yet the article also provides the reader a detailed understanding of, and introduction to, the players on both sides of this debate. Further, the article delves into an issue of semantics; that is, there is a movement to disassociate "cyber war" from "cyber espionage."  The arguments made in favor of disassociation are interesting, and well worth your time.  

The full text of the article can be found at the link above, or here.  Again, this article is highly recommended reading for class.